Public finance law needs changes

Sunday

Dec 23, 2012 at 12:01 AMDec 23, 2012 at 11:04 PM

33rd District race will make it harder

RAY HACKETT

I admit that given the outcome in the 33rd Senatorial District election this year it will be difficult — if not impossible — to convince the legislative majority (AKA Democrats) to support a change in the public financing law so that third party and petitioning candidates are treated equally.
In the 33rd contest, Democratic candidate, state Rep. Jim Crawford, D-Westbrook, was defeated by political newcomer, 24-year-old Republican Art Linares.
Not to take anything away from the hard work that Linares put in, but his victory was, in part, due to Green Party candidate Melissa Schlag’s strong showing — or more aptly put, Crawford’s loss was a result of Schlag taking thousands of votes away from him.
So, trying to convince Democrats in Hartford that they should amend the public campaign financing law so that candidates like Schlag are treated fairly — also referred to as “equal competitors” — would seem to be a difficult challenge.
Yet it is an argument that needs to be made again — and again.
You see, the way the law is written today, Schlag and other third party and petitioning candidates, after qualifying for the ballot, have to submit additional petitions with thousands of signatures to “prove” to the powers to be — AKA Democrats and Republicans in Hartford — that they have “sufficient support” to be deemed worthy of equal and fair treatment.
Schlag needed 8,000 signatures to qualify for an equal amount of public funds — $85,000 — that both Crawford and Linares receive with just one signature each — their own. Why? Because they’re Democrats and Republicans, and she isn’t. It’s as simple as that, not to mention grossly unfair.
I would imagine Republican lawmakers might support such a change. Think about it: A third party candidate proved far more helpful to the Republican candidate than having his name on the ballot as an Independent as well as the GOP nominee.
So, maybe if more Green Party candidates are running, Republicans might actually win more seats.
Another change needed — but won’t be — is the provision allowing “leadership PACs” to contribute to candidates, which seems completely contrary to the purpose of public financing: Eliminating special interest influence.
But thanks to the Supreme Court’s Citizens United ruling, and Greenwich billionaire Thomas Peterffy, that’s not likely to change. Peterffy, using his vast wealth, spent hundreds of thousands this past year trying to knock off five Democratic Senate incumbents, thus giving the Legislature’s majority leadership the “excuse” to retain that provision to “level the playing field” in future elections.
I say “excuse” because there was no such threat when the law was first drafted, yet the provision was included anyway, and obviously for some other “special interest” reason.
Although neither of those changes are likely, there does appear — finally — to be enough support this year to end the absolutely ridiculous — and insulting — provision of the law that allows incumbents with no opponents to receive public money to run campaigns they can’t lose — because they have no opponent.
In order to qualify for the public money, House candidates need to raise $5,000, Senate candidates $15,000.
If a General Assembly candidate can’t manage to run an uncontested campaign with $5,000 or $15,000, they have no business voting on $20 billion state budget — which might explain why we have deficits.
Ray Hackett is The Bulletin’s editorial page editor. He has more than 20 years covering Connecticut politics. He can be reached at (860) 425-4225 or rhackett@norwichbulletin.com.